UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
 
Organization type Committee
Abbreviation CESCR
management Maria-Virginia Bras Gomes
Founded May 28, 85
Headquarters Geneva
Upper organization Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)
 

The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, CESCR (Engl. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights ) is set up by the UN monitoring body which compliance with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights by (ICESCR, ICESCR) the contracting states monitored. It has an advisory role and can make recommendations to the contracting states on how they can improve the implementation of the treaty.

The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), which set up a working group for this purpose, was provided for in the Social Pact for this task . After criticism of the competence and independence of this working group, the CESCR committee was set up in 1985. Since then, the contracting states have been able to propose experts to ECOSOC, from whom ECOSOC appoints the members of the committee. The Addis Adeba guideline was created to guarantee the independence and independence of the treaty bodies.

The created CESCR committee consists of 18 experts and meets twice a year in Geneva, in spring at the Palais des Nations and in autumn at Palais Wilson .

tasks and activities

As a technical committee, it has the task of monitoring compliance with the social pact (IPwskR) by the states that ratified the agreement, which is done by examining the state reports (Art. 16 IPwskR). If a state has also ratified the Optional Protocol to the Social Pact (FP-IPwskR), it is also authorized to examine individual complaints (Art. 2 FP-IPwskR) and state complaints (Art. 10 FP-IPwskR) and to carry out its own investigations (Art. 11 FP-IPwskR), provided that the states expressly consented to this when the contract was concluded (Art. 10 f. FP-IPwskR). Its competence depends on the declarations and reservations the states made when the treaty was signed.

The contractual basis

The Social Pact was adopted on December 16, 1966, together with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Civil Pact) by the General Assembly of the UN (Resolution 2200A (XXI)). It came into force under international law on January 3, 1976 and contains the most important economic rights, such as the right to work, the right to just and favorable working conditions, freedom of trade unions, the right to strike, social rights such as protection of the family, rights to social security, an adequate standard of living, and food , and cultural rights, such as the right to education, participation in cultural life and the protection of intellectual property.

All member states of the UN can ratify the social pact and the associated optional protocol and thereby contractually undertake to comply with the provisions of these two conventions.

Ratifications

in force GermanyGermany Germany LiechtensteinLiechtenstein Liechtenstein AustriaAustria Austria SwitzerlandSwitzerland Switzerland
Social Pact (IPwskR) 03/01/1976 December 17, 1973 12/10/1998 09/10/1978 06/18/1992
Optional protocol to the IPwskR 05/05/2013 ------ ------ ------ ------

169 states have ratified the social pact and 24 states have ratified the optional protocol. Belgium only; El Salvador; Finland; San Marino and Portugal agree to state complaints (Art. 10 FP-IPwskR) and investigation procedures (Art. 11 FP-IPwskR), (as of February 2019).

Rules of Procedure

The committee created 2 rules of procedure , in which the organization, procedures and responsibilities of the committee are regulated. One of the rules of procedure (VerfO-SB) for the state reports provided for in the social pact and the other rules of procedure (VerfO-FP) for the procedures provided for in the optional protocol.

Rules of Procedure for State Reports (VerfO-SB)

In some cases it deviates considerably from Part 4 in the contract, since the procedure there was only rudimentarily regulated. The VerfO-SB for the IPwskR consists of 3 parts, Part I. General Provisions , Part II. Provisions in connection with the tasks of the Committee and Part III Interpretation and Changes . It contains 72 provisions called rules and is divided into 18 chapters.

The relevant chapters are:

  • Cape. 15 reports of the contracting states according to Articles 16 and 17 IPwskR, rules 58 to 65
  • Cape. 16 reports of the specialized organizations according to Article 18 of the IPwskR; Rules 66 to 68
  • Cape. 17 Other sources of information, rule 69

Rules of Procedure for the Optional Protocol (VerfO-FP)

These rules of procedure regulate the procedure for individual and state complaints and the investigation procedure by the committee. It contains 47 provisions called rules and consists of 4 parts.

  • The individual complaint procedure, rules 1 to 20
  • The investigation procedure, rules 21 to 35
  • The State Complaints Procedure, Rules 36 to 46
  • Press releases by the committee, rule 47

Examination of the state reports

The predominant activity of the committee consists in the evaluation of the periodic reports of the contracting states in which they have to explain how they are implementing the treaty (Art. 16 IPwskR). The test procedure is described in chap. 12 of the VerfO-SB and the committee issued a guideline on how these reports should be submitted.

The parties must, according to Rule 58 the Rules of SB to the Committee within two years of entry into force of the Agreement an initial report (Engl. Initial report ) submit every five years thereafter a periodic state report (Engl. Periodical reports ).

At the state reporting procedure also can non-governmental organizations (NGOs), national human rights organizations (NHRIs) and other specialized agencies actively participate and submit parallel reports to the state reports, show a lack of implementation of the ICESCR by States Parties. In doing so, gaps or errors in the state report can be clarified and deficits pointed out. Such parallel reports can be very informative for the committee (Art. 18 f. IPwskR, Rule 66 ff. VerfO-SB).

For the purpose of reviewing the report, the committee draws up a list of issues . The audit of the report takes place in public meetings in which a delegation from the state answers questions from committee members. The committee tries to determine whether the contracting state correctly implemented the IPwskR and how it could remedy existing deficiencies (Rule 61 et seq. VerfO-SB). For the participation of third parties at the public hearing admission is required (Engl. Accreditation ).

If, during the review of the report, the committee finds that the state has not fulfilled its contractual obligations, it can make suggestions and make general recommendations on how to remedy these deficiencies (Rule 64 VerfO-SB). These are referred to as " Concluding Observations ".

These recommendations of the committee are not legally binding. Their implementation cannot be enforced, only a follow-up procedure is provided in which a reporter checks the implementation of the recommendations by the state. There are no sanctions against the state concerned. The committee regularly recommends that the states ratify the Optional Protocol - without success for years.

Since some states are not fulfilling their contractual obligations and are not submitting any reports or are late in submitting reports, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR) created a list in which the states are listed that submit all their reports on time (e.g. Italy , Switzerland, etc.) and a list of the countries that are partially behind schedule (e.g. Germany, Liechtenstein, Austria, the Vatican, etc.).

Individual complaints

The individual complaints are euphemistically referred to as communications . If a state has ratified the optional protocol to the IPwskR, the committee can also examine individual complaints against this contracting state. In contrast to the other UN treaty bodies, the committee created neither a model complaint form nor a corresponding information sheet.

This complaint procedure is described in Art. 2 to 9 FP-IPwskR and in the first part of the VerfO-FP (rules 1 to 20). The admissibility requirements are set out in Art. 3 f. FP-IPwskR listed. The complaint must be submitted in writing, it must not be anonymous and must be written in one of the working languages ​​of the committee, for which the national legal process must be unsuccessful. The complaint must be submitted to the committee within one year of the last domestic decision; submissions made after this period will be declared inadmissible ( ratione temporis ). The complaint can also be rejected on the grounds that the committee is not competent because the alleged violation is not contained in the IPwskR ( ratione materiae ), the violation of the contract did not result in a clear disadvantage or the complaint constitutes an abuse of the right to complain. The same complaint may not be submitted to another international body (e.g. the ECHR , another UN treaty body , etc.).

The complaints submitted to the UN are first formally examined by the UNHCHR Secretariat (rule 1 VerfO-FP). Then the complaint is either rejected or registered and forwarded to the committee, which in turn examines the admissibility of the complaint (Art. 3 FP-IPwskR).

If the notification has not been accepted, the complainant will be informed of this in a standard letter. The secretariat usually uses a form in which mostly insufficient reasons are given, although this is not provided at all (Rule 1 No. 2 Rules of Procedure-FP) and information would have to be obtained instead (Rule 3 of Rules of Procedure-FP). Only complaints forwarded to the committee will be registered by the secretariat. No statistics are kept on the number of complaints already rejected by the Secretariat.

If the complaint has been accepted, it is forwarded to the state concerned for comment, whereupon it can in turn raise the objection of inadmissibility (Rule 11 Rules of Procedure-FP). The committee is also trying to reach an amicable agreement. If the contracting state agrees, this is recorded in a decision and the case is settled (Art. 7 FP-IPwskR).

The committee then examines the substantive admissibility of the complaint. If he declared the complaint to be inadmissible, then - in contrast to the secretariat - he justified his decision as to the inadmissibility of the complaint. Only afterwards does the committee deal with the content of the complaint (Art. 8 FP-IPwskR). If the committee found a breach of contract, it issues proposals and recommendations to the state on how to remedy this (Art. 9 para. 1 FP-IPwskR).

The state party concerned is then asked to give due consideration to the views of the committee and to inform it of its decision and any implementation of the committee's recommendations (Art. 9 para. 2 FP-IPwskR). The recommendations of the committee are not legally binding, their implementation cannot be enforced, only a follow-up procedure is provided in which the implementation of the recommendations by the state is checked (Art. 9 para. 3 FP- IPwskR, Rule 18 VerfO-FP) and, if necessary, will be discussed in the next state report procedure. Sanctions against the fallible state are not provided.

Precautionary measures

When submitting an individual complaint, precautionary measures ( interim measures ) can be requested at the same time (Rule 7 VerfO-FP) if there is a threat of irreparable damage. Such requests must be marked with Urgent Interim measures as soon as possible so that the Secretariat has enough time to examine the request and - if the complaint was not rejected - to order such measures, if necessary.

The committee can also order such measures of its own accord (Art. 5 FP-IPwskR), but it does not constitute a decision on the admissibility of the complaint or the determination of a breach of contract by the state.

Complaints to the committee and the ECHR

A complaint, for example because of a violation of the right to the formation of trade unions according to Art. 8 IPwskR and Art. 11 ECHR, may not be submitted to the committee and the ECHR at the same time , as these are the same facts. However, it is permissible to lodge a complaint with the committee on the grounds of Article 20 of the IPwskR right to social security and with the ECHR a complaint of a violation of Article 12 of the ECHR right to marry , since there is no overlap but rather different breaches of contract by the same state.

There are complaints that were first submitted to the ECHR, but were not accepted by it, with the standard reasoning: the complaint does not appear to violate the rights and freedoms guaranteed in the Convention (ECHR) or its additional protocols . The complaint that was then submitted to the UN committee was rejected on the grounds that it had allegedly been examined by the ECHR, even though the ECHR did not examine the substance of the complaint, but did not accept it.

In contrast to the UN committees, the ECHR rejects individual complaints, which essentially correspond to a complaint previously examined by the ECHR (Art. 35 (2) lit b ECHR).

In accordance with decision no. 577/2013 of the CAT committee of February 9, 2016, within the meaning of NB c. Russia for torture. At the same time, the complainant had submitted an identical complaint to the ECHR (No. 33772/13), which is why the CAT committee rejected the complaint (RZ 8.2). In the judgment database HUDOC of the ECHR, however, there is no judgment with the No. 33772/13, as the complaint was refused by the law firm and struck from the register - and therefore not examined by the ECHR.

State complaints

The Committee is empowered to investigate state complaints if a state party claims that another state party is failing to fulfill its obligations under this convention. The prerequisite for this is that both states explicitly recognized the committee's competence in a declaration when ratifying the Optional Protocol (Art. 10 Par. 1 FP-IPwskR). This procedure is described in more detail in the 3rd part of the VerfO-FP.

The secretariat is not authorized to declare state complaints inadmissible and, in contrast to individual complaints, there are no high formal requirements for state complaints, as for individual complaints in Art. 3 FP-IPwskR.

The task of the committee is to settle the dispute (Rule 43 VerfO-FP). If no amicable agreement can be reached, he summarizes the main facts and the statements of the two states. What ends the procedure (Rule 46 VerfO-FP).

Obvious oversight by the UN

The condition for a state complaint, according to which all domestic legal remedies available in the matter must be lodged and exhausted, unless the procedure for the application of the legal remedies takes an unreasonably long time (Art. 10 Par. 1 lit c FP-IPwskR) it is an obvious oversight by the UN, since the complaining state only has to inform the other state of the grievances in writing and if the matter has not been settled within six months, it can contact the committee directly (Art. 10 Paragraph 1 lit a, b FP-IPwskR).

Investigation procedure

If the committee receives reliable information about serious or systematic violations of the treaty, it can initiate an investigation procedure (Art. 11 FP-IPwskR), provided that the state concerned expressly consented to this procedure when the contract was concluded with the Optional Protocol (Art. 1 (1) FP-IPwskR). The inquiry procedure is described in the 2nd part of the VerfO-FP.

The state is asked by the committee to participate in the investigation process and to provide information on these suspicions (Art. 11 para. 4 FP-IPwskR, Rule 29 VerfO-FP). First, the information received is checked (Rule 26 FP-IPwskR) and if the suspicion is confirmed, an investigation is carried out. The committee can also carry out investigations on site in the state concerned, provided the state agrees. If the fallible state threatens and intimidates those affected, it can order protective measures for these (Rule 35 VerfO-FP). After the investigation has been completed, the committee sends the investigation report to the affected state and, if it finds any irregularities, recommendations on how to remedy them. The state must notify him of its opinion and the measures taken within six months (Rule 33 Rules of Procedure-FP).

The committee's recommendations are not legally binding and their implementation cannot be enforced. Apart from the fact that the implementation of the recommendations will be discussed in the next state report, no further measures are planned (Art. 12 FP-IPwskR, Rule 34 VerfO-FP).

General remarks

The interpretation and clarification of certain provisions in the Anti-Racism Convention, the Committee published General remarks (English. General comments ). They are intended to clear up misunderstandings and to assist the contracting states in fulfilling their contractual obligations (Rule 65 VerfO-SB).

Members of the CESCR

Committee members
Surname country Until on
Mr. Aslan ABASHIDZE RussiaRussia Russia 12/31/22
Mr. Mohamed Ezzeldin ABDEL-MONEIM EgyptEgypt Egypt 12/31/20
Mr. Asraf Ally CAUNHYE MauritiusMauritius Mauritius 12/31/22
Mr. Shiqiu CHEN China People's RepublicPeople's Republic of China People's Republic of China 12/31/20
Ms. Laura-Maria CRACIUNEAN-TATU RomaniaRomania Romania 12/31/20
Mr. Olivier DE SCHUTTER BelgiumBelgium Belgium 12/31/22
Mr. Peters Sunday Omologbe EMUZE NigeriaNigeria Nigeria 12/31/22
Mr. Zdzislaw KEDZIA PolandPoland Poland 12/31/20
Ms. Karla Vanessa LEMUS DE VÁSQUEZ El SalvadorEl Salvador El Salvador 12/31/22
Ms. Sandra LIEBENBERG South AfricaSouth Africa South Africa 12/31/20
Mr. Mikel MANCISIDOR SpainSpain Spain 12/31/20
Ms. Lydia Carmelita RAVENBERG SurinameSuriname Suriname 12/31/20
Mr. Waleed SADI JordanJordan Jordan 12/31/20
Ms. Preeti SARAN IndiaIndia India 12/31/22
Ms. Heisoo SHIN Korea SouthSouth Korea South Korea 12/31/22
Mr. Rodrigo UPRIMNY ColombiaColombia Colombia 12/31/22
Mr. Michael WINDFUHR GermanyGermany Germany 12/31/20
Mr. Renato ZERBINI RIBEIRO LEÃO BrazilBrazil Brazil 12/31/22

Additional information

Reports on the state reports

literature

See also

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ In addition to Russian, the abbreviation CESCR is used in all other official languages ​​of the committee, including Arabic and Chinese, also by the German Foreign Office
  2. ^ A b Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. CESCR website with detailed information. Accessed February 28, 2019 .
  3. ↑ Human Rights Bodies. UN human rights organs. Published by: High Commissioner for Human Rights, UNHCHR, accessed on February 28, 2019 (English).
  4. ↑ a b c International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (IPwskR). In: Liechtenstein Collection of Laws (LILEX). Retrieved February 28, 2019 .
  5. ↑ Human rights treaty . Published by: German Institute for Human Rights , accessed on March 1, 2019 .
  6. ↑ a b The UN Committee of Experts on the Social Pact (CESCR). Published by: German Institute for Human Rights , accessed on February 28, 2019 .
  7. ^ UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Published by Humanrights.ch , accessed on February 28, 2019 .
  8. ↑ ECOSOC Resolution 1985/17 of May 28, 1985. (Word) Creation of the CESCR. Ed: ECOSOC, May 28, 1985, accessed on February 28, 2019 (English).
  9. ^ Elections of Treaty Body Members. Published by UNHCHR , accessed on February 28, 2019 .
  10. ↑ Addis Ababa guidelines. (Word) Guidelines on the independence and impartiality of members of the human rights treaty bodies. Published by UNHCHR , accessed on February 28, 2019 .
  11. ↑ a b Membership. The committee's experts. Published by CESCR , accessed February 28, 2019 .
  12. ↑ Working methods. Working method of the committee. Published by CESCR , accessed on February 28, 2019 .
  13. ↑ The state is only obliged under international law to comply with the treaty after ratification. In Germany, the dualistic system applies, in which the contract must first be transformed into national law before it becomes justiciable. In Lichtenstein, Austria and Switzerland the monistic system applies, according to which the treaty becomes applicable immediately upon ratification.
  14. ↑ a b c d Optional protocol to the social pact. Text in German translation. Published by: German Institute for Human Rights , accessed on March 1, 2019 .
  15. ^ Individual Communications. Individual complaints to a UN treaty body. Published by UNHCHR , accessed on February 28, 2019 .
  16. ↑ a b state-to-state complaints. State complaints procedure. Published by UNHCHR , accessed on February 28, 2019 .
  17. ↑ a b Inquiries. Investigation procedure for systemic breaches of contract. Published by UNHCHR , accessed on February 28, 2019 .
  18. ↑ According to Art. 2 WVK, a “reservation” is a unilateral declaration made by a state when it joins a treaty, by means of which the state aims to exclude or change the legal effect of individual treaty provisions in this state
  19. ^ A b Status of Treaties - ICESCR. Ratification status, reservations and declarations on the IPwskR. In: Treaty collection of the UN UNTC. Accessed February 28, 2019 .
  20. ↑ a b c d e Status of Treaties - OP-ICESCR. Ratification status, reservations and declarations on the FP-IPwskR. In: Treaty collection of the UN UNTC. Accessed February 28, 2019 .
  21. ↑ The social pact (ICESCR). Published by: German Institute for Human Rights , accessed on February 28, 2019 .
  22. ^ Rules of Procedure. Rules of Procedure of the CESCR. Published by CESCR , accessed on February 28, 2019 .
  23. ↑ a b Rules of Procedure (VerfO-SB) for the state reports. Published by CESCR , accessed on February 28, 2019 . Version: E / C.12 / 1990/4 / Rev.1 from September 1, 1993
  24. ↑ a b c d Rules of Procedure (VerfO-FP) for the optional protocol. Published by CESCR , accessed on February 28, 2019 . Version: E / C.12 / 49/3 from January 15, 2013
  25. ↑ General reporting guidelines. Guideline for State Reports. Published by CESCR , accessed on February 28, 2019 .
  26. ↑ State reporting procedure. Published by: German Institute for Human Rights , accessed on February 28, 2019 .
  27. ^ Information Note for civil society and national human rights institutions. Information for NGOs and national human rights organizations. Published by CESCR , accessed on February 28, 2019 .
  28. ↑ Admission to negotiations with the committee. Published by CESCR , accessed on February 28, 2019 .
  29. ↑ a b c Legal instruments. (pdf) In: ABC of Human Rights. Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, FDFA, p. 10 , accessed on February 28, 2019 .
  30. ↑ Follow-up to concluding observations procedure. Published by CESCR , accessed on March 1, 2019 .
  31. ↑ UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Published by: German Institute for Human Rights , accessed on February 28, 2019 .
  32. ^ List of States parties without overdue reports - Late and non-reporting States. Published by UNHCHR , accessed on February 28, 2019 .
  33. ^ Procedure under the OP-ICESCR. Individual complaint procedure at the CESCR. Published by UNHCHR , accessed on February 28, 2019 .
  34. ↑ Basically: Complaint form for the CCPR, CAT and CERD committees. (Word) Ed: UNHCHR , accessed on February 28, 2019 (English).
  35. ↑ Follow-up to concluding observations. Published by CESCR , accessed on March 1, 2019 .
  36. ↑ Decision No. 577/2013 of the CAT iS NB c. Russia for torture. Accessed February 28, 2019 .
  37. ↑ The State Complaint Procedure. Social pact. Published by: German Institute for Human Rights , accessed on February 28, 2019 .
  38. ↑ The investigation procedure. In: Social Pact. Published by: German Institute for Human Rights , accessed on February 28, 2019 .
  39. ↑ Inquiry procedure. The investigation procedure. Published by CESCR , accessed on February 28, 2019 .
  40. ↑ General comments of the CESCR. In: Social Pact. Published by: German Institute for Human Rights , accessed on February 28, 2019 .
  41. ↑ General Comments of the CESCR. Published by Humanrights.ch , accessed on February 28, 2019 .